This matter was certified to the
Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board by the Fifth District Committee, Section
III, and was heard on July 26, 2002, by a duly convened panel of the Disciplinary
Board consisting of Karen Gould, presiding chair, Robert L. Freed, Theophlise
L.Twitty, H.Taylor Williams, IV, and V. Max Beard, lay member. The Respondent,
Robert Edmund La Serte, was present and represented by Rajeev Khanna, Esquire.
The Virginia State Bar (hereinafter referred to as the (Bar() was represented
by Seth M. Guggenheim, Assistant Bar Counsel. The proceedings were transcribed
by Valarie L. Schmit of Chandler & Halasz, P.O. Box 9349, Richmond, Virginia
23227, (804) 730-1222. This matter was also heard together with the consent
of the parties with VSB Docket #00-053-2018.

All required legal notices were properly sent by the Clerk of the Disciplinary
System.

The Chair polled the panel members to determine whether any member had a personal
or financial interest in this matter that might affect or reasonably be perceived
to affect his or her ability to be impartial in this proceeding. Each member,
including the Chair, responded in the negative.

Findings of Fact

Upon consideration of the testimony
presented and exhibits received, the Board makes the following findings of fact:

At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent, Robert Edmund LaSerte
has been an attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

In May of 1999, Steven and Sydelle
P. Levy, parents of the Complainant, Captain
Angel, hired the Respondent to prepare a deed conveying a piece of land in Stafford
County, Virginia as a gift to Captain Angel. John Daniel Reaves, Esquire, the
Respondent(s associate, prepared the deed for the Levys and Captain Angel under
the supervision and as directed by the Respondent. It was the first time that
John Daniel Reaves, Esq. had ever drafted a deed. The deed was executed on June
24, 1999, and filed by John Daniel Reaves in the land records of Stafford County
on July 13, 1999. The deed prepared for the Levys and Captain Angel was a general
warranty deed, not a deed of gift. The deed was defective as a general warranty
deed in that it did not contain any tax map references, the parties( marital
status, any references to prior deeds and incorrect information regarding metes
and bounds. (VSB Exhibit #3g.)

On May 27, 1999, the Complainant, a physician who was a Captain in the United
States Air Force and stationed in Florida, went to the Respondent(s office in
Virginia, signed a fee agreement with the Respondent(s firm and paid $175.00
in advance fees for representation in the closing of a construction loan for
the home she was building on the property in Stafford County, Virginia conveyed
to her by her parents. (VSB Exhibit #3e.)

On July 23, 1999, the Respondent was notified by the lender that the closing

of Captain Angel(s construction loan was scheduled for July 29, 1999. The Respondent
informed the lender and Captain Angel, through Mrs. Levy, that he could not
go to closing on the date scheduled. (VSB Exhibit #7.) The closing was continued
for ten days. The Respondent did not inform the Levys or the Complainant, Captain
Angel that he was not registered to perform real estate closings under the Virginia
Consumer Real Estate Settlement Protection Act. The Respondent testified that
his retainer agreement with the Complainant did not require him to do a real
estate closing. The Respondent testified that he was only employed by the Complainant
to review legal documents and to appear at settlement to explain things to the
client. The Complainant and Mrs. Levy contradicted the Respondent(s testimony
regarding the scope of legal services that he had agreed to perform. The Board
finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent(s testimony is not
credible and that he mislead Mrs. Levy and Captain Angel into believing that
he was going to handle the closing for them. The Board further finds that neither
the Respondent nor Mr. Reaves discussed the differences between a general warranty
deed and a deed of gift with the client.

The Respondent then referred Captain Angel to Dennis Weipert, Esquire, who drafted
a corrected deed, a deed of gift, conveying the property to Captain Angel, and
handled the closing. (VSB Exhibit #3h.) Captain Angel was forced to pay an additional
$583.99 in loan fees due to the delay in the closing caused by the Respondent,
and $75.00 to Attorney Weipert to prepare the deed and additional funds to the
settlement agent, Attorney Weipert(s title company, to conduct the closing.
(VSB Exhibit #3i,3j,3k.)

(6) Captain Angel wrote to the Respondent on August 9, 1999 to request a refund
of the $175.00 that she had advanced to the Respondent, the $75.00 she had to
pay to Dennis Weipert to prepare another deed and to do the real estate closing,
and the additional fees that she had to pay to close the loan because she lost
her loan commitment ($583.99). (VSB Exhibit # 3b.) The Respondent failed to
respond to Captain Angel(s letter and did not refund any portion of the advance
fee that was paid by the Complainant, Captain Angel.

DECISION OF THE BOARD

Based upon the foregoing, the Board
finds by clear and convincing evidence that undertook to represent a client
in a matter in which he was not fully proficient and that he failed to associate
another attorney who was competent. Respondent failed to discuss with the client
what type of deed should be prepared and that Respondent(s associate, under
his supervision and direction, prepared a deed that was woefully inadequate.
The Board further finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent
failed to notify the client of his inability to perform real estate closings
and failed to respond or to have his associate, Mr. Reaves, respond to the Complainant(s
inquiries. The Board finds that these actions violated DR 6-101(A)(1) and (2)
and DR 6-101 (C) of the Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility:

DR 6-101, Competence and Promptness.
A lawyer shall undertake representation only in matters in which:

The lawyer can act with competence
and demonstrate the specific legal knowledge, skill, efficiency, and thoroughness
in preparation employed in acceptable practice by lawyers undertaking similar
matters, or
The lawyer has associated with another lawyer who is competent in those matters.

(C) A lawyer shall keep a client
reasonably informed about matters in which the lawyer(s services are being rendered.

The Board further finds that the
other charges of misconduct in VSB Docket No. 00-053-0760 have not been proven
by clear and convincing evidence and the Board dismisses all other charges under
this Docket Number.
SANCTION

Following the Board(s announcement
of its findings with respect to the misconduct established, Assistant Bar Counsel
and the Respondent were permitted to offer evidence in aggravation or in mitigation
of such misconduct and to present argument.

Upon consideration whereof, it is ORDERED that Respondent be and he is hereby
issued a PUBLIC REPRIMAND effective upon entry of this Order, with terms, which
are as follows:

Within thirty days (30) of entry of the summary order, the Respondent is to
make full restitution to the Complainant, Dr. Angel for the monetary losses
she sustained. The restitution amount of Eight hundred Thirty Three Dollars
and Eighty Nine Cents ($833.89) includes Five Hundred Eighty Three Dollars and
Eighty Nine Cents ($583.89) for additional loan fees incurred due to the delay
in closing caused by the Respondent, Seventy-Five Dollars ($75.00) in legal
fees paid to Attorney Weipert, and One Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars ($175.00)
as reimbursement for advance fees paid to the Respondent that were not refunded
upon request by the Complainant. The Respondent is further ordered to pay restitution
in the amount of Three Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Three ($3,453.00) since September
1, 1999 to Crestar Bank in VSB Docket Number 00-053-2018, also decided today.
The Respondent is further ordered to pay interest on the aforesaid amounts to
Dr. Angel and Crestar Bank in the amount of nine percent interest from September
1, 1999 until paid in full. In the alternative, if the Respondent does not comply
with these terms within 30 days, then his license shall be revoked.

It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Part Six, Section IV, Paragraph 13 (k)(10)
of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Clerk of the Disciplinary
System shall assess costs.

It is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Disciplinary System send an attested
true copy of this Order to Respondent Robert Edmund La Serte, Esquire, by certified
mail, return receipt requested, at his address of record with the Virginia State
Bar, 5827 Orchard Hill Lane, Clifton, Virginia 20124, to Rajeev Khanna, Respondent(s
Counsel, 3912 Whispering Lane, Falls Church, VA 22041, and to Seth M. Guggenheim,
Assistant Bar Counsel, Virginia State Bar, 100 N. Pitt Street, Suite 310, Alexandria,
Virginia 22314.